Green Peace Leader Rags on Solar Power

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

I repeat myself because you ignore it. You gloss over the most basic of issues.


So you've just demonstrated that you take no notice of such issues, and just like to celebrate it expanding. Nice one.


Again, the nature of those numbers eludes you.

So the people who are behind the technology say it has huge potential. What else are they going to say?

This is the crux of your failing. You cite page after page of solar websites claiming it proof that such technology will be huge in the near future, and the slightest criticism is met with insults. Such sites are going to say nothing but try to sell their technology. Journalists love them, as they make great stories. You've only ever provided one sided stories, and have no balance at all. Meanwhile, I've repatedly stated that I think they're fab, but think that their expansion has limits owing to a variety of factors. I'd love it to be otherwise, but there you go.

You must realise that putting such a plant in the middle of the desert will impact on it. Does that bother you?

Show us you care, and try to work out what factors limit its expansion

You repeat yourself because you don't have a credible argument and have nothing better to offer other than twisted falsehoods and unsubstantiated opinion. What you or I think is not the most important thing. What's more important is providing credible substance to your case and you have provided nothing.

Thus show us all that you care, by backing up your words with substantial external evidence. Even better, why don't you show proof that what the articles are saying is false. You are not proof. You have no credibility any more than anyone else in this forum and based on your false and misleading misrepresentations in this thread, I suspect now less.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Yes read the article. Everything has pros and cons. Would you prefer more CO2 ? to breath and Climate Change ?

No, I'd rather look at all solutions with a balanced view, which you seem to lack.

The world is already dependant on oil.

Oil? How much oil will be saved by such technology? Not much I suspect, given the low percentage of electricity that is produced by oil.

Its coal and gas you need to worry about in this context.

Nobody has to buy the electricity they produced by the super grid, if they don't want to. Governments obviously will do whatever they see as being in their national interest. That does not preclude the benefits of Solar Thermal energy. Get real.

Political stability is a real issue that cannot be ignored, as is affordable, reliable energy.

If we were to have a supergrid in Europe, we would still need nuclear energy. And people are unlikley to have a choice whether they used it or not.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Why wouldn't I like the message if I thought it had substance?


It shows you're a tool.


Apologies for the lack of clarity. We often call the boiler water, cooling water on our site (don't ask), but no matter, the key issue is the fact that the sites will consume the water, regardless of the recycling, as you need to bleed off and recharge eventually owing to deteriation. But there is a whole host of other issues that require water, and this is only part of it.

The deeper into the desert its situated, the large you'll need to build it to make it worthwhile, as you'll need to spend more on infrastructure. Therefore, it will require more water, in areas where there is less.

Also, the more deserty environment you put it in, the more dusty/sandy it will be, and will require more cleaning (or even completely unsuitable). Many of the sites that would otherwise be suitable maybe currently be used for so kind of agricultureal use (eg, grazing or orchards), or a delicate ecology being in such a dry area.


Solar thermal water heaters for domestic use are completely different issue. I'd have one if I thought it was worth it, but I don't use enough.

Apparently, solar PV won't work so good in areas where solar CSP would be appropriate, so you shouldn't really combine them. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You still haven't addressed the grid stability issue. Well, not in any resalistic way anyway.

I think the notion that solar PV and thermal don't work well together is an over simplification. One produces heat, the other electricity. There may be situations where they are both useful.

Again I never indicated desert, the articles did and that's their prerogative. Desert can mean many types of environment, not just sand dunes. The Germans are in on this they are not fools, but excellent engineers.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

All technologies have financial and technical limitations. Again you are telling us nothing new here, just repeating yourself. Solar thermal grew 18% in the US last year but this year is set to grow a whole lot more. There comes a point where the economic and technical factors reach a stage where a technology matures to a price point, where its growth rate picks up. This point has been reached and we can now expect this uptake of Solar Thermal to increase. This is not my opinion, this is reflective fact of what's happening in industry.

But a 18% increase isn't that great when one considers where the starting point is. The installed capacity isn't that great, so an 18% increase isn't big news.

Again, your inabaility to look at these issues realistically is showing. Yes, its expansion will increase in the coming years, but it won't be too prolonged, as the limiting factors start to kick in. Just like

It's not my aim to disprove anything you say, because what you say is not the issue.

Try it. On any issue I've raised.
Its not enough to say the things I say are a none argument. You complain that I provide no backup, but neither do you. All you've shown are grossly biased references, and your own ignorance. You've swallowed any positive and rejected any negative.

Do you deny that water won't be an issue (even though its mentioned in one of the articles you put up)?

Do you deny that the best sites are often environmentally sensitive for this technology?

Do you deny that grid stability is an issue and there will be limit its contribution?

Do you deny that dust/sand will be issue in many areas of high level sunlight?

Do you deny that the links you've put up are biased?

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

I've replied to you directly where appropriate, without twisting anything. I can't help you don't like it, but then I never said you would.

In your dreams. You have twisted just about everything and accompanied it with no substance and no credibility. You are not to be believed above anyone else in this forum. Your opinion alone does not rate as credible substantive evidence. Show me and the audience just one report from a reputable organization, that suggests Solar Thermal will play just a small part in our future. Until you do so, you are all talk, and nothing else. The articles I have presented have far more credibility and substance than your cheap remarks do.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

I think the notion that solar PV and thermal don't work well together is an over simplification. One produces heat, the other electricity. There may be situations where they are both useful.

I was thinking that PV loses efficiency at higher temperatures, and therefore would be less effective where solar thermal would be more effective. PV though is generally expensive and has niche applications. Its expanding, but again, expanding from a very small capacity.

Again I never indicated desert, the articles did and that's their prerogative. Desert can mean many types of environment, not just sand dunes.

Absolutely. Deserts can have varying degrees of vegetation, but the sort of environment where this technology works best is where we need to be considering. In areas of aridness, you tend to have fragile ecologies, and the spread of desertification (which one of the links mentioned) should not be sniffed at.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

No, I'd rather look at all solutions with a balanced view, which you seem to lack.


Oil? How much oil will be saved by such technology? Not much I suspect, given the low percentage of electricity that is produced by oil.

Its coal and gas you need to worry about in this context.


Political stability is a real issue that cannot be ignored, as is affordable, reliable energy.

If we were to have a supergrid in Europe, we would still need nuclear energy. And people are unlikley to have a choice whether they used it or not.

The point about oil is about energy dependency and security, being an issue raised in the article about the European Super Grid concept. We already have issues with energy security with oil, so relying on electricity across boarders is nothing new in that regard. The point about oil is that eventually when electric vehicles come in, the grid will be even more depended on and will need to be even more sustainable. Nobody ever said nuclear wont be required. As I said, you are shadow boxing.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

But a 18% increase isn't that great when one considers where the starting point is. The installed capacity isn't that great, so an 18% increase isn't big news.

Again, your inabaility to look at these issues realistically is showing. Yes, its expansion will increase in the coming years, but it won't be too prolonged, as the limiting factors start to kick in. Just like



Try it. On any issue I've raised.
Its not enough to say the things I say are a none argument. You complain that I provide no backup, but neither do you. All you've shown are grossly biased references, and your own ignorance. You've swallowed any positive and rejected any negative.

Do you deny that water won't be an issue (even though its mentioned in one of the articles you put up)?

Do you deny that the best sites are often environmentally sensitive for this technology?

Do you deny that grid stability is an issue and there will be limit its contribution?

Do you deny that dust/sand will be issue in many areas of high level sunlight?

Do you deny that the links you've put up are biased?

No I don't deny these challenges might exist and many more challenges beyond them, as they do with all technology. You don't setup a picnic lunch in the middle of a freeway either. Are these engineers so stupid that they are doing to build solar thermal power plants, where they are not viable. Well I guess if they can do it with nuclear, then why not, in that case man can do anything stupid. The plants will in all likelihood be built, with all these considerations in mind. Be realistic, I doubt the designers and engineers are going to do all the stupid things you suggest they might do. There is plenty of scope for them to work around the issues you have raised and still ensure Solar Thermal has a significant impact of future energy supplies.

No of course 18% is not great, it's a starting point and in 2008 - 2009 based on planned construction that 18% will turn into more than double of that. based on other project projections that rate will rise significantly.

The term "coming years" as you put it, is ambiguous, open ended and non committal. Year 2100 is a coming year. What nonsense. Ambiguity appears to be another one of your trademarks in arguing a weak case. Its clearly evident that Solar Thermal likely has decades of potential growth.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

You repeat yourself because you don't have a credible argument and have nothing better to offer other than twisted falsehoods and unsubstantiated opinion.

You accuse me of that without a single shred of evidence. Irony?

And then all you do is cite a load of propoganda.

What you or I think is not the most important thing. What's more important is providing credible substance to your case and you have provided nothing.

You haven't provided anything credible. Just biased links. A solar company is going to say what? That solar energy has huge potential. Hardly dripping academic credibility is it?

Dispove anything I've said. Try it.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Be realistic, I doubt the designers and engineers are going to do all the stupid things you suggest they might do.

Show one place where I suggested that the engineers would do those things.

There is plenty of scope for them to work around the issues you have raised and still ensure Solar Thermal has a significant impact of future energy supplies.

[cough]grid stability[/cough]